Redlands Unified board censures member, continues debate on books and flags

REDLANDS, Calif. — Months into a heated debate over school library books and classroom flags, the Redlands Unified School Board again failed to reach consensus Tuesday night, highlighting ongoing divisions over issues of identity, parental rights, and educational freedom.

The nearly six-and-a-half-hour meeting deepened rifts between board members, culminating in a vote to censure Trustee Melissa Ayala-Quintero and advance controversial policy proposals.

Board President Michele Rendler, along with trustees Candy Olson and Jeannette Wilson, voted both to censure Ayala-Quintero and to move forward with a policy restricting classroom flag displays.

Here’s a recap of the night’s three most contentious discussions:

Censure vote

The board voted 3-2 to approve a censure of board member Melissa Ayala-Quintero for her behavior during an April 8 meeting. The resolution claims Ayala-Quintero had a heated exchange with board member Candy Olson and turned her chair toward Olson in a confrontational way.

Ayala-Quintero denies threatening or acting aggressively toward Olson. She admits to starting a verbal exchange but says she was trying to hold Olson accountable for allegedly laughing at public speakers.

“I should not have done that, as it is not my job to hold other board members accountable for their behavior,” Ayala-Quintero said. “From now on, I will ask the board president to maintain board member decorum and ask for a point of order.”

Olson pushed to add language stating that Ayala-Quintero told her, "Tell me one more time," which Olson sees as a verbal threat.

Ayala-Quintero disagreed, saying, "I'm denying that there was threats made. Having a disagreement isn't the same as threatening someone."

Superintendent Juan Cabral said he saw Ayala-Quintero turn her chair but didn't notice any lunging or aggressive posturing.

“I never said that there was a threat. I said that there was an exchange. And that when I saw you turn your chair, I decided to get up to stop it. I did not see you lunge. I did not see you do anything other than turn your chair, just like you've described,” Cabral explained.

Board Vice President Patty Holohan expressed frustration, saying, “I'm appalled and embarrassed that we have come to this point. How pathetic that as a board, with new board members coming in five months into this, and this is where we are.”

After the censure passed, Ayala-Quintero gave a statement accusing Olson of political motivations and hypocrisy. She promised to keep advocating for students despite the censure.

Book policy debate

The board discussed proposed revisions to Administrative Regulation 1312.2, which governs complaints about school library materials. The changes would create a separate process for reviewing books alleged to contain pornography or graphic sexual content, with those cases going directly to the school board.

Rendler defended the policy as a way to ensure age-appropriate content. “For me, it's about not having sexually explicit material in our libraries or media centers, regardless of sexuality,” she said.

Olson took a strong position against such materials, saying, “I am shocked to hear people begging to place sexually explicit material in the hands of minors. It's disgusting to me, and while you may choose to do that in your own home, I will not stand for it here, not while I'm on this board.”

Ayala-Quintero argued that the proposed changes reflect distrust in librarians and could lead to censorship. “It suggests that there's distrust of this board in our district employees,” Ayala-Quintero said. “We have hired them. We pay them to be professionals in their field, and that's what they've been doing.”

Olson claimed that she, Rendler, and Board Member Jeannette Wilson represent the majority opinion on this issue.

Ayala-Quintero questioned the need to rush the policy changes, saying, “I don't understand why we're steamrolling this through. If we're really trying to be transparent and honest with our constituents and our students and our staff, there needs to be care taken into this.”

Currently, parents can contact schools to prevent their children from checking out specific books or require parental approval for all library checkouts.

A key point of contention is whether the board should have final authority to remove books after they've been reviewed by a district committee.

"I don't feel comfortable making a decision on that when we have qualified librarians — that this is their job," said Ayala-Quintero.

Public comments were divided, with many speakers — including students, parents, and librarians — warning that the policy would restrict access to meaningful literature and could harm students who see themselves represented in challenged books.

“Some of the most meaningful books I’ve read have made me uncomfortable — and that’s good,” said Izzy, a Redlands High School sophomore. "When you ban a book, you're not banning words. You're banning experiences. You're telling students that certain people or stories don't belong in the classroom."

Sebastian, a sixth-grade student, added: "Books are a great thing for someone to relate to and not feel alone. This policy takes some of that from students."

Hannah, a former Redlands Unified School District student, pointed out, "Books don't harm students, ignorance does. Silencing voices, erasing identities and narrowing access to literature does lasting damage."

Speakers also raised concerns about vague language. “All it takes is for somebody to complain that a book contains pornographic or erotic content,” said district resident Tim Ormsby. “And the book is instantly removed. It doesn't come back… I don't think the school board was elected to be the morality police.”

Supporters of the policy, like Dale Broome, framed it as a child protection measure. “Protect their sexual innocence by keeping pornographic books out of the school libraries,” he said.

Although no vote was taken, Rendler said the board would wait to receive a list of the books under scrutiny before taking further action.

Flag policy discussion

The board also continued debate over a proposed policy that would limit flag displays in classrooms to the U.S. and California flags, with exceptions only for instructional use.

Rendler proposed a compromise that would allow teachers to display small Pride flags in personal spaces, alongside items like family photos.

“I don’t want our teachers to lose their personalities in their classroom,” she said.

Olson and Wilson rejected the proposed compromise. "Just because you might want to shrink it doesn't mean it's not there," Olson said, referring to a small Pride flag in a teacher's personal space. She added that ideological displays, including Pride flags, could be upsetting to some families.

Rendler then asked about a wedding photo of a same-sex couple, to which Olson replied: "I think a general rule of thumb should be if you feel that it's going to be offensive to some of your students' families, then maybe it shouldn't be there — regardless of what it is."

Superintendent Cabral interjected that the district encourages and welcomes all teachers to display pictures of their families and loved ones in their personal classroom space.

"We invite all our staff to share pictures of their family, whatever their family looks like," Cabral said. "We feel it’s important for them to share who their families are."

Ayala-Quintero warned the policy could lead to the suppression of teacher identity and expression. “This is Pandora’s box — slippery slope, very vague,” she said.

The board discussed school-sponsored events and activities to align with the district's education goals. Cabral confirmed that celebrations like Black History Month would be allowed under the policy and that the same standard must be applied to all protected groups.

The discussion became increasingly heated when again addressing whether teachers should be allowed to display Pride flags in their personal spaces.

"One of the issues with the Pride flag is it has a sexual connotation to it," Wilson stated.

This comment drew immediate pushback: "To you. To most people that think like you," said Ayala-Quintero. She went on to suggest that those supporting the policy were voting based on personal opinion and accused board members of not wanting students or staff to be able to identify themselves.

That sparked disagreement, with Rendler responding, "You're putting words in my mouth."

Student speakers again voiced opposition.

“The Pride flag doesn’t suppress students or force anyone to think a certain way,” said Summer, a Cope Middle School student. “It shows who’s an ally.”

Christina Long, a former school counselor and education policy researcher, cautioned the board against adopting policies without evidence. “There’s no empirical evidence that a flag ban increases positive school climate,” she said. “But there is research showing it may harm student mental health.”

A few speakers supported the proposed policies. Lawrence Hebron, who identifies as a former classroom teacher, argued that displaying personal ideological symbols can be "emotionally coercive" to students.

"Teachers often exert tremendous influence over their students, and when teachers display signs of their personal beliefs in the classroom, it can become emotionally coercive," Hebron said.

The board voted 3-2 to advance the policy to the next stage: union negotiations. A final vote is expected later this year.